EDITORIAL
Politics and Prayer
Published: August 2, 2011
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has underscored an essential boundary between church and state. In a 2-to-1 vote last week, the court found that the board of commissioners in Forsyth County, N.C., violated the establishment clause of the Constitution — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — by starting its meetings with prayers “endorsing Christianity to the exclusion of other faiths.”
Legislatures have long opened sessions with prayers seeking divine guidance. The Supreme Court has dealt directly with this issue only once, in 1983. It approved of prayers before legislative sessions because the founders regarded them as “conduct whose ... effect ... harmonize[d] with the tenets of some or all religions.” But in related cases, the court has made clear that government can’t favor one religion. The Fourth Circuit observed that these invocations must not “repeatedly suggest the government has put its weight behind a particular faith.”
The dissent in the Forsyth County case claims that the county did not violate the establishment clause because it invited local leaders of each religious congregation to deliver a prayer on a first-come-first-served basis.
But the county hosted prayers that, almost four-fifths of the time, made sectarian references to tenets of Christianity. “Heavenly Father,” began one prayer cited in the ruling, “tonight we are so grateful for the privilege to pray that is made possible by Your Son and His intercessory work on the Cross of Calvary.” It went on, “And we’re so grateful tonight that we can look in the Bible and see how You instituted government.”
The county’s practice favored what the Fourth Circuit describes as “the majoritarian faith in the community at the expense of religious minorities.” The Fourth Circuit deserves credit for saying that a government that favors one faith flouts the inclusive nature of American government, harming church and state
Cassi Creek: I've sat through prayers such as those described above. The local communities will support the prayers and the preachers who insist upon making them in such a manner. In fact, the local populace will express rabid support and will behave aggressively toward that miniscule segment of the population that dares question the propiety and legality of such prayers.
There is no question that the participants know they are wrong under the law. They deliberately choose to ignore the Constitutional limitations placed upon religion by our founders. Those who object to such prayers are told that they should wait outside the venue or ignore the prayers because the community supports them.
This is the type of unconstitutional behavior that later becomes characterized in “wars on Christianity” Such complaints are wrong. There is no war on Christians, merely another in a long and tiring series of attempts to require Christians to acknowledge that the Constitution over rules any religion, and will continue to do so.
While there is no “war on Christ ianity,” there is and should be a war on theocracy , in order to prevent the establishment of a theocracy in the United States.
The very real threat of theocratic domination of our governments at all levels must be blocked.
Theocrats are insidious in their assaults upon the 1st Amendment. Witness the reference, “And we’re so grateful tonight that we can look in the Bible and see how You instituted government.”
The most frightening aspect of the quote is that the person responsible for making it honestly believes it. If asked, so will the vast majority of the local population. But there is no such devine instituion of government such as we have today. The early Hebrews were tribal in nature. The only image of government that shows up in pre-temple Hebraic culture was a male-dominated tribal culture dominated by a heriditary priesthood, hereditary temple guardians, evolving into a theocracy and ruled by a divine right king. Sadly, too many of today's “Christians” would have no problem in the re-emergence of such a theocratic form of government.
I'm very grateful for the court that rendered this decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment